In a recent interview with Mark Dever, Darryl Hart suggested that Westminster (CA) students tend to be more historically focused while Westminster (PA) students tend to gravitate toward biblical theology. Hart has asked students from each school which three authors they would prefer to have if stranded on an island. The typical Westminster (CA) would prefer Calvin, Berkhof and Kline whereas Westminster (PA) students would select Vos, Ridderbos and Gaffin.
While I’m not qualified to speak about the accuracy of his statements regarding Westminster (CA), I think he makes an interesting and generally accurate observation. Clearly, this kind of statement cannot be applied to the entire student body of either institution, but as far as general trends go, I believe he’s right. If that’s the case, then we necessarily arrive at an is/ought question. Should we necessarily place a heavier emphasis on biblical theology? Is some other stress preferential or should we place equal emphasis on systematic, historical and biblical theology?
In recent years it has become increasingly common for theologians to focus their attention on the sphere in which redemption occurs. The Temple motif from the Garden of Eden to the Heavenly City–New Jerusalem–is traced out in such noteworthy works as O. Palmer Robertson’s Christ of the Prophets, and Understanding the Land of the Bible; T. Desmond Alexander’s From Paradise to the Promised Land, and From Eden to the New Jerusalem; William J. Dumbrell’s Covenant and Creation; G.K. Beale’s The Temple and the Church’s Mission, John Fesko’s Last Things First, and Meredith Kline’s Kingdom Prologue. The question that now must be asked is whether or not the work of these men can be further developed and deepened for our benefit.
Read the rest of this entry »
When studying general and special revelation, people can tend to think of special revelation as a supplement that comes in only after the fall into sin. Special revelation is seen as a mode of revelation that is exclusive to the post-lapsarian order since it is a specifying or corrective revelation that communicates the details of redemption. It bears the message of the gospel to men whom have fallen into guilt and corruption. Let me augment that view ever so slightly. In chapter 2 of Biblical Theology, Geerhardus Vos is intent on showing that special revelation existed even prior to the fall. Even before Adam sinned, God initiated a verbal relationship with him. We should not think of special revelation qua special revelation as strictly redemptive or exclusively part of the post-lapsarian order. We should rather see special revelation as interpreting or further specifying what God has revealed in general revelation whether that revelation is prior or subsequent to the Fall.
Vos has a helpful way of understanding how general and special revelation relate to each other. He teaches that God’s Word interprets his deeds. Throughout Scripture, God often announces his work, acts, then interprets his work again. The interpretive Word always accompanies the deed. We should always understand special revelation as the interpreter of general revelation. Moreover, this is a one-way street. General revelation does not have interpretive authority over special revelation.
Though we should affirm the existence of pre-redemptive special revelation, special revelation does take on a specifically redemptive character after the fall. Again in chapter 2 of Biblical Theology Vos says that it ushers in a whole new world. It is the offer of the gospel of Jesus Christ and is at the same time the offer of the eschatological life which Adam failed to obtain. In the garden, special revelation conveyed to Adam that eschatological life could be grasped by perfect and personal obedience to the Lord. After the fall, special revelation conveys to us that eschatological life is available by faith in the second Adam – the one who has offered a perfect, personal and perpetual obedience to the Father on behalf of his people.
Identifying the precise role of the particular aspects of theocratric Israel’s legal system is difficult in any given theological system, but particularly in Covenant Theology (a system that stresses the radical unity of the Old and New Testaments). While this is the case, the difficulty does not hinder the appropriateness of the system, if the type/anti-type model is applied to the theocratic structure of the relation of the Old Covenant to the New. Geerhardus Vos, in his usual skillful manner, explained the importance of this type/anti-type principle in “The Mosaic Theocracy,” chapter 11 of The Eschatology of the Old Testament. There Vos noted:
The eschatological idea influencing the constitution of the theocracy becomes dependent on the interaction of the type and the antitype. The future state imposes its own stamp on the theocracy, an actual institution of Israel. The theocratic structure projects its own character into the picture of the future. Heaven reflected itself on Israel and Israel became part of the future. The type inevitably influences the conception of the antitype. The future is depicted in terms drawn from the present, earthly, material reality. There is somewhat of the shadowy, inadequate character of the prefiguration that passes over into the description of what the eschatological will be like when it comes. The antitype impresses its stamp upon the theocratic structure and imparts to it somewhat of its transcendent, absolute character. The theocracy has something ideal or unattainable about it. Its plan, as conceived by the law, hovers over the actual life of Israel. The theocracy in the idea transcends its embodiment in experience.1
Read the rest of this entry »
